Saturday, 30 April 2016

“To the writers of books upon meteorites, it
would be as wicked–by which we mean departure from the characters of an
established species–quasi-established, of course–to say that coal has fallen
from the sky, as would be to something in a barnyard, a temptation that it
climb a tree and catch a bird. Domestic things in a barnyard: and how wild
things from forests outside seem to them. Or the homeopathist–but we shall
shovel data of coal.”

-Charles
Fort, The Book of
the Damned

The End

With a title
like The End of Fossil
Fuels you may think that this is an article about alternative
energy or “free” energy, but alas, it is not. It is an attempt to describe the inadequacy
of the term “fossil fuel” and to prevent its further usage in the English
language through education in the mysteries of the hydrocarbon structures in
the earth. I can’t blame people for having used this misleading phrase, being
guilty myself. We are regularly taught such misconceptions in school. But one
should always be ready to learn new ideas and concepts, especially once the
evidence is investigated.

The term
“fossil fuel” is a standard phrase used in reference to hydrocarbons in their
various permutations as petroleum, coals, and natural gas. The argument to be
presented here is that hydrocarbon deposits are not “fossilized carbon” at all
in the sense implied in the modern usage of that term, that there is a larger
“carbon dynamic” eventuating in the earth process. The standard response to
this is “well, they FIND fossils in the deposits”. This is scientific fact and
will not be disputed, fossils certainly are found in SOME deposits, many of
them being quite curious – coal balls and roof balls – and will be discussed in
turn as they will further our argument. There are also serious fossil
anomalies, evidences of human intelligence which crop up in various coal beds
supposedly laid down hundreds of millions of years before humans are supposed
to have existed. But we will first look at the hydrocarbon structures
themselves.

Universal
Carbon

There is a
curious picture to be gleaned by considering the diverse distribution of carbon
throughout the universe.
Carbon is ubiquitous, being the 4th most abundant element in the solar system,
along with oxygen, hydrogen and helium. Hydrocarbons have been detected in
interstellar gas clouds, in the atmospheres (as methane, CH4) of the superior
planets, Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus, Neptune, and in various forms on several
moons of these planets and Pluto. A significant percentage of the asteroids
exhibit certain optical reflective properties of tar, as was also measured in
the core of Comet Halley.

There is
such a universal abundance of carbon that it may be reasonably considered that
during the formation process of the earth vast amounts of elemental carbon were
integrated into the deep earth structure, and cosmic carbon is still being
deposited on earth in interplanetary dust grains. Numerous meteorites with
carbonaceous content have been reported, including lumps of pure coal, though
these are not prominently promoted in science, as their references are usually
common rather than scientific. After all such things as extraterrestrial coal
simply can’t exist, so why would a scientist bother recording it?

Carbon
exists on earth with a dual physical nature as the hardest (diamond) and the
softest (graphite) of mineral deposits. Carbon is also a fundamental ingredient
of carbonate “sedimentary” rocks (limestone, chalk, graphite, dolomite, etc.),
some deposits exhibiting curious and fantastic features which bring into
question the normal concepts of sedimentation. Atmospheric and biospheric
carbon are integral to our very structure and existence, and it is the
acclaimed residue of past biospheric activity, which is the alleged source of
earth’s vast and generally pure hydrocarbon deposits.

Carbon is
everywhere permeating the earth—in “depositional” structures well studied due
to the immense economic and political value of usable hydrocarbons, and as
rarefied migration and transformation through much of the earth to the surface,
where it slowly but constantly outgases. Hydrocarbon deposits are vast and
diverse: oil, coal, natural gas, methane hydrate, etc. They appear in all
geological strata from Precambrian (pre-life!) to Recent (too young for
“fossil” process), and include igneous rocks (deep earth origins, allegedly no
life due to heat and pressures involved), with some hydrocarbon deposits
completely enclosed in basalts. Oil is also found in bubbles in crystals and
geodes.

What could
be the source of all this carbon? One current theory is that depositions are
resultant from the carbon cycle in the biosphere, which imposes an incredible
and curious stability on earth’s chemistry, as oxygen breathing fish are found
since the early Paleozoic. Calculations of the carbon budget of the earth
indicate that on average 20 kilograms of carbon have been deposited per cubic
centimeter (20kg/cm2) over the age of the geological column. That is quite an
astounding bit to come from purely biological processes, and the curiosities of
the deposits are astonishing as well.

Dinosaur
Dung

If
hydrocarbon deposits in the earth are not formed from distilled fossils, then
what?
There is an alternative viewpoint in the abiogenic–non-biological–theory of hydrocarbon deposits
(Mendeleev, Sokoloff, Vernadsky, Kudryavtsev, Gold, and others), and that is
that the carbon–a primordial earth substance–is constantly upwelling as methane
from the deep earth where it was deposited during the original planetary
coagulation. In this theory the primordial carbon, deposited from cosmic origin
during the formation of the earth, is transformed into petroleum and coal by
chemical and bacteriological action in its upward migration from depth. This
abiotic theory has been well advanced in our current times by Thomas Gold, a
noted and erudite scientist, but is still not provided a fair hearing in the
courts of science. Gold has done extensive research, including drilling into
Precambrian igneous rocks for hydrocarbons, to prove his theory.

In what is
known as Kudryavtsev’s Rule “any region in which hydrocarbons are found at one
level will be seen to have hydrocarbons in large or small quantities, but at
all levels down to and into the basement rock.” Where oil and gas deposits are
found, there is often a concordant coal seam or seams above them. Where the
vertical stacking of hydrocarbon deposits is found such as in Iran, Java and
Sumatra, and Oklahoma amongst other locales, drill shafts for oil and gas wells
penetrate shallower coal beds. Gas is usually the deepest in the pattern, and
can alternate with oil. All petroleum deposits have a capstone generally
impermeable to carbon’s upward migration, and this capstone provides the
damming mechanism allowing accumulated deposition.

Under the
oceans methane hydrate has accumulated in a semi-stable “frozen” state. This
may be the result of the great masses of oceanic water acting as a capstone/reactor
with the methane, and methane hydrate is also found under permafrost associated
regions. The methane hydrate deposits under the ocean floors are estimated at a
staggering one billion cubic kilometres of carbon gas! There is twice as much
carbon in this frozen gas under the oceans than in all the land based
hydrocarbon deposits (coal, oil, etc) combined.

In
considering in our imagination how these deposits are structured in the earth,
we can see how one has cause to build a picture of carbon gas migrating up from
deep earth sources globally. How and in what form it deposits–if it doesn’t
work its way to the surface like much of the gas–depends on geological and
chemical structures of both large and small areal extent.

Signposts
and signatures

Petroleum and Tectonic Map of Southeast Asia. The
relationship of the hydrocarbon deposits to the geological area in whole,
independent of geological age and rock type, is easily seen. A common chemical
signature links these oils of diverse geological, but close geographical
location. The relationship of the deposits to both mountain and volcano
formation zones indicates upwelling hydrocarbons as the primary driving force
for such diverse geological phenomena.

Oil deposits
are claimed to be of marine fossil origin, migrating from fossiliferous shales into
other geological strata, generally only sedimentary. One major but little
publicized problem–outside
of the fact that no actual fossils have ever been found in petroleum–is
that there is no known exact chemical process for conversion of biological
debris into petroleum! Biological markers are claimed as the proof of
biological origins, but perhaps they are contaminants. Some of the “biological
markers” in oil are present in cosmic hydrocarbons. Here we find a major
scientific belief–that of the biological origins of oil–without the fundamental
and most necessary mechanism ever having been accurately described! And you
thought it was all figured out, I’ll bet.

Common
chemical signatures, based on trace element content ratios, are found in oil
from particular regions, such as the Middle East, regardless of geological age
of deposit. In fact most oils can be analysed in this fashion to provide information
on their regional source. The hydrocarbon deposits of Southeast Asia are found
in an arc running from the Himalayas through the volcanic regions of Indonesia,
cutting quite a geological swath. Yet the oil from any deposit in this region
possesses a characteristic chemical marker, an affinity thus indicating a
common regional source. Another dimension is added in that of the common
chemical signature of oil found in Ordovician layer source rocks worldwide,
said to be caused by a specific microfossil.

Coal and oil
are considered to be of differing origins, oil from marine deposits and coal
from vegetative land deposits. The two types of deposits are often related, and
oil and coal also have significant chemical affinities. Oil and volcanic
products have close chemical affinities as well, and it has been proposed
(Coste) that hydrocarbon deposits have been injected into the geological column
through volcanic solfataric action.

Earthquakes,
like volcanos, may also be related to upwelling hydrocarbons. The shifting of
large subterranean gas volumes could easily account for earthquake action and
could also provide a workable model for tsunamis. Numerous eyewitness accounts
over the centuries indicate curious natural phenomena related to earthquakes:
lights, sounds, flames. In countries such as China, where pragmatism has the
ability to overcome theory, ground gas measurements have been used successfully
to predict earthquakes (Haicheng, 1975). A whole range of curious natural
phenomena such as earthquake related lights and booming sounds may well be
connected to upwelling hydrocarbon gasses.

Gas is
produced in commercial quantities from the sides of Mount Taranaki, New
Zealand’s largest active volcano, so volcanos and hydrocarbons are known to be
directly related.

Diamonds are
formed in volcanic pipes, from materials brought from extreme depth in the
earth. This shows that pure unoxidised carbon (diamond) and methane, which has
been detected as gas bubbles in diamonds, exist at great depth, providing the
source material for the abiogenic theory.

While Thomas
Gold has promoted a modern scientific approach to the relationship between
hydrocarbon gases, earthquakes and volcanos, we can also thank James Churchward
who proposed this link as the cause for the sinking of the hypothetical lost
Pacific continent of Mu: it was the collapse of massive gas bubbles in the
earth’s crust. Two things to consider here: 1. such gas bubbles exist
(commercial gas fields), are related to volcanos in some geographical areas as
mentioned, and are being poked to extract the gas–like pins in admittedly thick skinned balloons–with
little comprehension of the tremendous power being played with for short term
commercial gain; and 2. perhaps many of the mysteries of global geological
structures and earth history–mountains, crater remains, mass extinctions,
etc–can be explained by the upwardly migrating gas bubble theory. It may well
be a major cause of geological activity.Vast as an inadequate
word

But even if
the biological theory is true, some of the petroleum reserves are incredibly
vast, and one wonders where the even larger accumulations of source rock could
possibly be. This “source rock” simply has not been found in many cases.

Prudhoe Bay
in Alaska has an estimated retrievable reserve of 15 billion barrels–one of the
largest reserves of oil known. However, the oil and tar sand deposits are
astounding giants in comparison. The Orinoco heavy oil belt in Venezuela and
the Canadian oil sands of the Athabascan deposits both contain estimates of
over 1000 billion barrels of oil each. These are deposits of heavy oil
completely intermixed with sands over thousands of square miles. There is no
way that this extremely vast amount of heavy viscous–flowing only when heated–hydrocarbon
material could have formed, “migrated”, and become completely intermixed, into
the present sand beds from any “fossil” deposit.

What could
be the origin of all this heavy oil? Upwelling transforming carbon? Perhaps, a
strong contender. But the trials and tribulations of the carbon element cannot
explain the many curiosities and anomalies of the geologic column, of which
petroleum and coal are but mere pieces of the puzzle.

The
Athabascan sands, which date from the Cretaceous, overlie extensive Devonian
bitumen deposits bearing a chemical affinity thus indicating a common origin!
It is curious to note that in this general geographical region, there is an
unconformity of other Cretaceous rocks conformably overlying Devonian rocks,
with outcrops for over 150 miles in one direction. This is quite a bit of the
geological column to be missing as though nothing had happened during those
vast stretches of time: the carbonaceous Carboniferous itself, the great
die-offs of the Permian, the initiation of the age dinosaurs in the Triassic,
the dinosaur fluorescence in the Jurassic, all as if not a day had passed. This
unconformity, like many others, are best left alone, or cherished notions shall
be lost, forever.

Near Banff,
Alberta Lower Cretaceous beds are overlain conformably with Lower
Carboniferous. Some of the rock consisting of this dual formation is so similar
as to be easily mistaken for the same deposit, save for the difference in
fossil content. That is, that if it weren’t for the fossil differences it would
appear to be the same bed of deposits, completely lacking Pennsylvanian,
Permian, Triassic and Jurassic activities. There are many such anomalies and
curiosities in the structure of the earth, some of which make us question the
true nature of the geological column, whether or not it truly represents a
linear time line of deposits. But for the point at hand we will refer to the
accepted layerings and names, and perhaps at another time delve more deeply
into the questions arising out of the complex structures of sedimentary
deposits.

The
Carboniferous period–comprising the Mississippian and Pennsylvanian– is named
after the vast amounts of coal and other hydrocarbons found at this horizon
level of the geological column. The coal deposits are certainly not limited to
the Paleozoic, appearing in progressively younger strata into the Tertiary, but
the Pennsylvanian beds are vast and persistent, both in thickness and areal extent.
It has been assumed and acclaimed that these vast deposits are merely the
remains of ancient forests and swamps, compacted and transformed over time. As
a reference, it has been estimated that the present Amazon forest, if
compressed into coal, would only comprise a couple inches or so of coal. I
shall quote the ever eloquent Velikovsky on the subject:

“Seams of
coal are sometimes fifty or more feet thick. No forest could make such a layer
of coal; it is estimated that it would take a twelve-foot layer of peat deposit
to make a layer of coal one foot thick; and twelve feet of peat deposit would
require plant remains a hundred and twenty feet high. How tall and thick must a
forest be, then, in order to create a seam of coal not one foot thick but fifty?
The plant remains must be six thousand feet thick. In some places there must
have been fifty to a hundred successive huge forests, one replacing the other.”

What about
an 800 foot thick coal seam in Australia? How many miles thick must the plant
matter have been to form such massive pure carbon deposits? What, pray tell,
causes these multiple layers and exceptionally thick coals? While peat bogs do
have a chemical congruence with coal beds, there are questions of size and
structure which leave the fundamental question of origin still open. Would
successions of peat bogs and marshes continually be deposited at the same flat
area, dozens of times, cycling with shales and limestones, and adding in clays,
sands and gravels in more recent deposits? Velikovsky postulates catastrophe
spawned hurricanes sweeping burnt forest debris with successive tides sweeping
in marine layers and fresh layers of burnt organic materials. Yes, some of the
evidence supports his line of thought, but not all of it.

Somehow I
think something more organic–or more properly, organised–has happened, or is
happening.

Sequential
Somethings

Cyclothems
are rhythmic sediments, repeated layerings of alternating strata, such as coal,
limestone, shale, etc. They are not to be confused with annual, or “varve”,
deposits, which indicate seasonal variations. No, the cyclothems are boggling
curiosities. The Pennsylvanian cyclothems, which in this case include coal
measures in the sequence, cover over 50,000 square miles in areal extent in
North America, and further persist in outcrops around the globe. Some of the
associated layers are very thin shales less than half an inch thick bedded in
layers with pure coal of varying thicknesses, all perfectly dead level and
flat, with known continuous segments of over 15,000 square miles! How can these
finely layered strata be explained? Certainly not by sedimentation, especially
when the fossils are considered. And when we consider that these same coal seam
sequences are found in Europe, then their amazing persistence truly boggles the
mind. Methinks more than giant hurricanes at work here.

Fusain, or
“mother of coal” is a charcoal-like geological layer that appears in coal beds
mostly, but not always. Fusain contains “woody” characteristics, indicating a
potential vegetative origin, however the exact mechanism has yet to be
scientifically described. It is persistent globally, and it has been suggested
is the remains of conflagration. What sort of conflagrations create perfectly
thin flat carboniferous layers of questionable origin and of great areal
extent?

Vein-like
deposits of coal have been described, such as the Canadian type known as
Albertite, suggesting the possibility that the coal was at one time liquid.
This is a further nail in the coffin for the increasingly tenuous conjecture
that the coal beds are merely ancient swamps & peat bogs. It is almost a
certainty that the coal was injected as a liquid into the fissures. In the case
of Albertite, a vein coal from New Brunswick, Canada, liquid petroleum is found
in cavities, as well as in cavities of related shales.

Waiter,
there’s a fly in my soup!

Fossils are
certainly found in coal,
but these raise far more questions than they answer. Actually the greater
curiosity is the general absence of fossils and source material patterning in
coal, save for reports on some Tertiary coals such as the Geiseltal of Germany
which has been described as a “veritable graveyard” of flora and fauna of
globally diverse geographical and climatological regions deposited in a mixed
and disarticulate fashion. Such large deposits of mixed biological debris are
not limited to coal beds, and are quite indicative of global catastrophe such
as postulated by Velikovsky. Deposition of the Geiseltal must have been quite
rapid, as chlorophyll is still found preserved in leaves in the coal, thus
indicating that the coal itself is not the leaves! Perhaps it had rained as fire
from the sky during or causing suggested catastrophe. Or was squirted wholesale
from the bowels of the earth, to punish and extinguish the trees and animals of
paradise.

In general
however, what fossils that have been found in coal beds are replacement fossils,
that is they bear the patterns of the original flora or fauna, but consist of
coal itself, or often pyrite and other minerals. Most fossils that do occur are
at the top or above the seam, leaving the seam bodies pure. That is, the
fossils are found in the non-coal roof or floor rocks!

Coal is
amazingly pure carbon, often 90% or more, with mineral contents as low as 4%,
and ash residues of less than 3%. Curiously, erratic boulders and rock
fragments are found in coal, though soils which the vast coal-forming forests
supposedly grew upon are fully absent. It is claimed that the so-called
“fireclays” found underlying many coal beds are the soils upon which the vast
forests once grew, but in Nova Scotia there is a coal measure three miles
thick, whose structure contains 76 coal seams and 90 fireclay layers. The
fireclays are occasionally found without related coal as well.

Proceeding
into the continually more curious we come across the polystrate (multiple
strata) intrusions such as fossil trees. These can penetrate from a carbonate
layer–e.g. limestone–into
one or more coal layers. This raises the question of how those trees could have
stood through successive aeons of forest accumulation and destruction.
Shouldn’t the tree have become part of one mere layer of coal, along with its
tree brethren? Examples of such trees are described in the literature as
“coalified where they are within the coal seam, but are not coalified where
they are in the carbonate” (Gold) leaving exact origin open to question. Seriously,
how could a tree stand through the complex and long term activities which
supposedly caused the finely laid, flat, consistent coal beds and end up
partaking of the mineral substance of that and the alternating oceanic layers?
There are many examples of polystrate fossils, they are not limited to coal
beds, but they raise some important questions. Common sense indicates a new
picture must be built.

Coal balls
and roof balls are another curiosity. Coal balls are spheroids of plant
materials residing in the body of the coal seam and described as “remarkably
well preserved” (Corliss). They range in diameter from several feet down to an
inch or so. Roof balls are a similar phenomenon, though occurring in the shales
overlying the coal beds, and consisting of marine fossils. These two phenomena
appear to be related, as they both indicate motionally active, rather than
passive, formative processes in the creation of the spheres. The polarity
between plant and marine animal indicates a alternation of origin, but yet they
are structurally related. Is the formation of the shale directly related to the
coal? Can we afford to overlook some wider ranging indications of organised
patterning in geological formations? Organised… organic… am I allowed to think
in this direction?

Now,
for my next trick

But beyond
curious and into the really weird we must consider some of the more bizarre
objects
which have been discovered in coal. Coins and spoons, stone walls and ancient
mine tunnels, all have been reported from ancient coal beds. While stone walls
and tunnels can be written off as “natural” formations, this is not so easy
with the manufactured metal artifacts. A gold chain was found in a lump of
Carboniferous coal by Mrs S.W. Culp of Morrisonville, Illinois in June of 1891.
Whilst breaking up coal for heating Mrs Culp discovered the chain still
partially imbedded in the coal chunk she had just broken. According to standard
dating of geological strata, the chain is approximately 300 million years old.
An iron cup was found in coal by an electric plant worker in Arkansas in 1912,
the coal having come from Oklahoma and being dated at about 312 million years
ago. These dates are vastly previous to any accepted human occupation of this
planet–dinosaurs had yet to
walk the earth–yet fully human remains come from related strata! In
1862 in Macoupin County, Illinois, human male bones were discovered in a slate
covered coal bed 90 feet underground. The bones were crusted with a
carbonaceous deposit which was easily scraped away to reveal white bone
underneath. A similar skeleton found in a coal bed in Leicestershire, England,
was reported in 1829. But people didn’t exist when the coal was being formed,
so you will not learn of these anomalies in school or encyclopedia, yet.

While
bizarre finds such as these are certainly not limited to coal beds, we’ll keep
our focus to make our point. When we consider the rhythmic successions of
finely layered, perfectly flat, persistent facies of coal, and then further add
into our consideration the unique character of fossils actually found in and
around coal beds, from the coal and roof balls and polystrate trees to the
evidences of humans, then we find cause to disbelieve that these deposits are
the remains of ancient forests. Which is further confirmed by deposits such as
the vein-like coals.

The
Beginning

Perhaps the
entire geological column is a Fortean event, or series of events, and if so we would
expect the unexpected, and that is what we find, upon scrutiny. If the vast
hydrocarbon deposits are the remains of some ancient global life process, then
we must work to build a picture of life through forensic examination of the
residue: i.e.
the geological column. It would not be life as is presently conceived and
pictured in numerous books–dinosaur infested swamps, or seas filled with
strange flora and fauna. Well researched scientific evidence has given cause
for such pictures, but the gaps in the pictures are ignored, to the detriment
of knowing the real past. We are left to conjecture over the origins of the
earth’s layers, that ancient and wonderful residue so highly appreciated in
rugged mountain and desert canyon.

But is not
all physical substance the residue of previous life activity? But what sort of
life, planetary singular? A planetary being that rains single species deposits
of dinosaurs or fishes along with carbonate cements. Why not, such deposits
exist. But so do jumbled deposits of diverse animals mixed together as if by massive
global turbulence, or single deposits such as the Cambrian Burgess Shale that
contains more types of life than the rest of the geological column put
together. No easy answers.

Perhaps as
Rudolf Hauschka has proposed, carbon is the primal Earth element itself (in the
series with Water, Air and Fire), given life and form through the in streaming
of cosmic forces when they meet at the earth’s surface. And as this earth
element wells up from deep underground on wings of fiery hydrogen, rather than
being the residue of life, perhaps it is a necessary precursor. If so, what
toll do we take on the future life waves of planet by our abuse of, and
degeneration into, hydrocarbon technology. For everything that can be made in
“organic” or coal tar chemistry can also be made from plant carbohydrates, from
textiles to plastics, dyes to fuels, we can grow it all from the ground without
rupturing earth’s vital fluid system. Not only should we stop calling
hydrocarbons “fossil fuels”, but we should also stop sucking them out of the
earth. And then, perhaps, the natural order of intelligent progress will have
cause to eventuate.

We provide
a live link to your original material on your site (and links via social
networking services) - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps
spread your info further!

This site
is published under Creative Commons (Attribution) CopyRIGHT (unless an
individual article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright
holder). Reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged - if you
give attribution to the work & author and include all links in the original
(along with this or a similar notice).

Feel free
to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you
never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember
attribution!

If you
like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too small or too large)
or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long
and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible worlds…

Friday, 29 April 2016

“Broadly
speaking, although there are some differences, I think Buddhist philosophy and
Quantum Mechanics can shake hands on their view of the world. We can see in
these great examples the fruits of human thinking. Regardless of the admiration
we feel for these great thinkers, we should not lose sight of the fact that
they were human beings just as we are.”

– the Dalai Lama

Scientists
and Buddhists from all over the world are starting to see the similarities
between their disciplines,
and the research which is emerging as a result is truly exciting. A
classic example of a scientist diving into ancient wisdom is Nikola
Tesla, whose work was heavily influenced by Vedic philosophy. You can
read more about that here.

Here is a great clip of world renowned quantum physicist
Dr. John Hagelin at an event discussing transcendental meditation.

Findings within
neuroscience, dealing with things like past lives and reincarnation, also
correlate with Buddhist philosophy; perhaps this is why Carl Sagan said that
reincarnation deserves serious study, and since his passing, it has received
some. In 2008 University of Virginia psychiatrist Jim Tucker, for example,
published a review of cases suggestive of reincarnation in the
journal Explore. You
can read that study and find out more about it here.

Without
a doubt, various ancient Eastern traditions are closely tied with
certain aspects of modern day science. Though it may seem counterintuitive
to some, it seems as though science is actually working to catch up to
the teachings of ancient philosophy and mysticism rather than the
other way around.

“I
regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative
from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk
about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness.”

– Max Planck,
theoretical physicist who originated quantum theory, which won him the Nobel
Prize in Physics in 1918

It’s
great to see that in today’s day and age, multiple prominent scientists from
all over the world have started to study non-physical phenomena and human
consciousness.

Christof
Koch, the Chief Scientific Officer at the Allen Institute for Brain Science and
a leading American neuroscientist, has illustrated how new theories in
neuroscience suggest that consciousness is present in all things. A couple of
years ago he took a trip to India to discuss the topic with a group of Buddhist
monks and ended up debating with the Dalai Lama for an entire day.

During
his conversation with the Dalai Lama, Koch was most struck by his
ideas about ‘panpsychism’: the belief that consciousness is
everywhere, “and that we have to reduce the suffering of all conscious
creatures.”

Koch,
who became interested in Buddhism in college, says that his personal worldview
has come to overlap with the Buddhist teachings on non-self, impermanence,
atheism, and panpsychism. His interest in Buddhism, he says, represents a
significant shift from his Roman Catholic upbringing. When he started studying
consciousness — working with Nobel Prize winner Francis Crick — Koch believed
that the only explanation for experience would have to invoke God.
But, instead of affirming religion, Koch and Crick together established
consciousness as a respected branch of neuroscience and invited Buddhist
teachers into the discussion.

Below
is the video of Koch at the event in India:

Integrated
Information Theory (IIT)

IIT is a
theoretical framework for understanding consciousness which was developed
by Giulio Tononi, MD, PhD, from the Center for Sleep and Consciousness at the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Koch collaborates with Tononi on a regular
basis, and believes ITT to be the only truly promising fundamental theory of
consciousness.

The
theory states that physical systems all contain consciousness, and that this
consciousness can be measured as a theoretical quantity, which they are
calling phi.

Tononi
has developed a measuring system for phi in the human brain, where scientists
send a magnetic pulse into a human brain and observe the pulse echo through the
neurons. The idea is that the longer and clearer the reverberation, the
higher the tested subject’s level of consciousness. The test can be used
to tell whether a patient is awake, asleep, or anesthetized.

What
Tononi and his team are trying to do is measure consciousness. The fact that it
has yet to be measured explains why a large portion of mainstream academia
rejects the notion of consciousness existing as a separate entity, outside
of the brain.

Tononi
and Koch recently published a paper in Philosophical
Transactions of the Royal Society B, emphasizing that
consciousness is a fundamental aspect of reality, like other aspects that we
can see and perceive with our senses.

The
theory states that any object with a phi greater than zero possesses
consciousness. This would mean that even protons are conscious beings, which
wouldn’t be too far off considering that when you observe them at the
quantum level, their behaviour changes, almost as if they know they are
being watched.

In
the video, Koch describes how Buddhist teachings led him to study
consciousness scientifically:

I
was confronted with the Buddhist teaching that sentience is probably everywhere
at varying levels, and that inspired me to take the consequences of this theory
seriously . . . When I see insects in my home, I don’t kill them.

It’s
fantastic to see this merging of science and philosophy, even if determining the
source of consciousness remains a task beyond our grasp. Scientific
theories like IIT help to further push the much-needed study of consciousness
into mainstream academia.

At the end
of the nineteenth century, physicists discovered empirical phenomena that could
not be explained by classical physics. This led to the development, during the
1920s and early 1930s, of a revolutionary new branch of physics called quantum
mechanics (QM). QM has questioned the material foundations of the world by
showing that atoms and subatomic particles are not really solid objects—they do
not exist with certainty at definite spatial locations and definite times.

Most
importantly, QM explicitly introduced the mind into its basic conceptual
structure since it was found that particles being observed and the observer—the
physicist and the method used for observation—are linked. These results suggest
that the physical world is no longer the primary or sole component of reality,
and that it cannot be fully understood without making reference to the mind.

– Dr. Gary Schwartz, Professor
of Psychology, Medicine, Neurology, Psychiatry and Surgery at the
University of Arizona (source)

Below
is a great video from Dr. Gary Schwartz (quoted above) in which he
discusses whether consciousness is the product of the brain or a receiver
of it. It’s a fantastic and short overview of an immense amount of
research; this subject has tons of peer-reviewed scientific
research behind it which not many people have the time to go through
themselves, and he has thoughtfully condensed that research to allow more
people access to it.

We provide
a live link to your original material on your site (and links via social
networking services) - which raises your ranking on search engines and helps
spread your info further!

This site
is published under Creative Commons (Attribution) CopyRIGHT (unless an
individual article or other item is declared otherwise by the copyright
holder). Reproduction for non-profit use is permitted & encouraged - if you
give attribution to the work & author and include all links in the original
(along with this or a similar notice).

Feel free
to make non-commercial hard (printed) or software copies or mirror sites - you
never know how long something will stay glued to the web – but remember
attribution!

If you
like what you see, please send a donation (no amount is too small or too large)
or leave a comment – and thanks for reading this far…

Live long
and prosper! Together we can create the best of all possible worlds…

Follow New Illuminati on Twitter

SUBSCRIBE to the NEW ILLUMINATI YOUTUBE CHANNEL

Contact Us

Welcome to the new Enlightenment, an era when suppressed science, hidden history and the enlightening nature of reality are all revealed to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

These are the thoughts and ideas of New Illuminati - bold forerunners and pioneers of new awareness all over the globe.

Notes on new emerging paradigms from the NEXUS New Times Magazine Founder R. Ayana, who lives in a remote Australian rainforest (and is no longer involved with the magazine) - Catching drops from the deluge in a paper cup since 1984.

§ 107.Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include — (1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes; (2) the nature of the copyrighted work; (3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and (4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

This material is published under Creative Commons Copyright – reproduction for non-profit use is OK. Awesome Inc. theme. Powered by Blogger.

Claimer

All opinions, facts, debates and conjectures xpressed herein are xtrusions of macrocosmic consciousness into your field of awareness. The New Illuminati are not to be held responsible or accountable for flashes of insight, epiphany, curiosity, transformation or enlightenment experienced by any person, human or otherwise.